West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/132/2019

Sri Madhab Barman, S/O- Kinu Barman - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Officer-in-charge, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

29 Oct 2021

ORDER

The instant case has been initiated by the complainant U/S – 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties claiming an amount of Rs. 30,500 /- + compensation Rs. 10,000/-  with interest from 04.06.2018.

           The fact of the case, in brief ,  is that the Complainant is a farmer and he has cultivable land in Dangbiral mouja, Plot No.724, area 40 dec., P.S. – Balurghat, Dist. – Dakshin Dinajpur which was insured. On 22.03.2018 the Complainant took loan from the Thakurpura Barkail Sambay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. for Boro paddy Cultivation of Rs.25,000/- of above mentioned landed property which was covered crop insurance of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. for a sum insurance of Rs.30,500/-, vide A/C No. 112000791946. The said crop was damaged due to sporadic occurrence of hail storm to the extent of 33% or above. The said crop damage notification was published from the office of the District Magistrate, Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat as per note sheet placed by D.D.A. (Admn. ), Dakshin Dinajpur. About 119 of small and marginal farmers in the said area have got the compensation from the crop Insurance Co. i.e. O.P. No.1 but the Complainant still did not receive any compensation. The Complainant met with the O.Ps. on 16.11.2018 but neither of the O.Ps. gave the compensation rather harassed by showing different un-necessary reasons. Lastly, the Complainant made a complaint before the Assistant Director of Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices but in vain. Having no alternative, the Complainant filed the instant case for relief as mentioned in the plaint.             

Notices were duly served upon the opposite Parties but only Opposite Party no.2 and Opposite Party no.3 appeared before this Commission and filed their written version. The Opposite Party no.1 & 4 did not turn up despite of valid service of notice upon them. Hence, the case is proceeded ex parte against them.

By filing written version, the opposite Party no.2 has denied the material allegation as mentioned in the plaint. The Opposite Party no.2 has stated that he has duly submitted a list of the loanee members, Crop( BORO ) 2017- 2018 on19.12.2018 in which the name of the Complainant has been mentioned in SL.No.152.

That one notification, from the end of the District Magistrate, Dakshin Dinajpur, was published on 04.06.2018 regarding  crops of Boro Paddy and Jute in Balurghat Block to the extent of 33% and above, caused by sporadic occurrence of hail storm on 29.04.2018, in which Mouza- Dangbiral, J.L No.-214, under Gopalbati  G.P. of Balurghat Block was included and it is also mentioned that in respect of Boro Paddy 60 hectors of land damaged above 33% out of 60 hectors and the numbers of affected farmers mentioned as 240. It is crystal clear that this Opposite Party personally or collectively is/ares not responsible for non-payment of the insured amount from the Opposite Party no.1.

The Opposite Party no.3 has also filed written version denying all the material allegation against him. The Opposite Party no.3 has stated that in the last of 2017-18 in the Rabi crops season, the Thakurpura Barkail Sambay Samity sent a list of 319 numbers of farmers to him for the purpose of uploading in the PMEBY Portal with their names and other particulars. Among those 319 numbers of loaned farmers, the incomplete data of 38 numbers candidates were found and the rest numbers of 281 farmers dates and names were uploaded in the Portal.

The Opposite Party no.3 has further stated that the work for PMFBY PORTAL uploading is done in the process of OFFLINE UTILITY. The process of the offline utility is that to make an Excel file which is to be uploaded in PAMFBY PORTAL and this Opposite Party performed his duty in this system. At that time the file is made that is MIGRATE EXPORT, DATA XML DOCUMENTS FILE. After uploading this file, the Opposite Party no.3 has no scope or opportunity to open the same. If some names have not been accepted by the PORTAL that may happen for the disturbance of the PORTAL and for this reason the Opposite Party no.3 cannot be blamed.

The Opposite Party no.3 performed his duty properly and sincerely and no kind of negligence can be found out for uploading the PORTAL. The petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed against him.

 

To prove his case, the complainant has filed the     following documents

1. Notification no.1868-AG/0/Crop Ins./7C-18/2017 dated 23^rd November, 2017 of Govt. of West Bengal  
2. Certificate of Thakurpura Barakoil S.K.U.S. Ltd. (B.D.P.) 
3. Notification of Govt. of West Bengal mentioning the area where crops have been damaged. 
4. List of the names of the loanee with bank A/c no., Insured sum and particulars of the land with damaged crop. 

        On the other hand, the Opposite Parties have failed to file any document in support of their defense.   

In view of the above-mentioned facts, the following points are cropped up for consideration

                           POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION 

 1.  Whether the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite     Party?

 2.  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

 3.  Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for? 

 

                                 DECISION WITH REASONS

 

 We have heard arguments by the Ld. Advocates for the both sides at length. We have also gone through the written examination–in–chief and written arguments filed by both the parties as well as the documents produced by the Complainant.          

At the time of argument, the Complainant narrated the facts of the case as mentioned in the complaint and submitted that the Opposite Parties are very much negligent in rendering service to their bona-fide customers. Due to the negligent act / deficiency in service of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant met with an irreparable financial loss and mental pain and agony. The documents produced by the Complainant proved his case so, he is entitled to get the relief.

 On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party no.2 also discussed his defense case and submitted that Ld. Commission redress the dispute in between Complainant and Opposite Party No.1 by elimination this Opposite Party from this controversy.

Ld. advocate for the Opposite Party No.3 also contended that the Opposite Party no.3 performed its duty properly and sincerely and no kind of negligence can be found out for uploading the PORTAL during the performance and for that reason no compensation should be passed against this Opposite Party.

 

                       Now, let us discuss all the points one by one. 

 

Point No. 1  

 

Admittedly, the Complainant took a loan of Rs,25,000/- on 22.03.2018 for agriculture purpose from Thakurpura Barkail Sambay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. i.e. Opposite Party no.2 and the said loan was covered crop Insurance of Rs.30,500/- vide A/C No. 112000791946 with Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. i.e. Opposite Party no.1 If this be the so, then it can be said that the Complainant is a consumer under the Opposite Party no.1&2.  

            Accordingly, this point is decided in favour of the Complainant.   

 

Point Nos. 2 & 3  

 

            Both these points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.  

It appears from the record that the Complainant has a piece of land measuring 40 dec., Plot no.724 under Dangbiral Mouza, P.S.- Balurghat, Dist. – Dakshin Dinajpur. It is admitted by the Opposite Party No.2, that the Complainant took a loan of Rs.25,000/- from him for the purpose of cultivation of Boro Paddy and the said loan was insured by the Opposite Party No.1 to the tune of Rs.30,500/-. It is also an admitted fact that the paddy and jute of the Balurghat Block damaged caused by sporadic occurrence of hail storm on 29.04.2018. 

Now, from the list published by Thakurpura Barakail S.K.U.S. Ltd. the name of the Complainant with total particulars of land, loan amount,insured amount and the nature of crops has been mentioned in serial no.215. 

              Further, from the Notification vide Memo no.555 dated 04.06.2018 published from the office of the District Magistrate, Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat, it appears that “Due to sporadic occurrence of hail storm on 29.04.2018 in Dakshin Dinajpur District Viz. the crop of paddy & jute in Balurghat Block have been damaged to the extent of 33% and above.” It further appears in that Notification that the name of Block – Balurghat, Gram Panchayat – Gopalbati, Mouza – Dangbiral, area – 60 hectors of Boro paddy have been mentioned and the nos. of affected farmers are 240. 

Again, from the Notification published by the Govt. of West Bengal, Department of Agriculture, Crop Insurance Branch, Howrah – 711102 Vide No.1868-AG/0/Crop Ins./7C – 18/2017 dated, Howrah, 23^rd November,2017 that the scheme has to be implemented by 2 (two) Insurance Agencies viz Reliance GIC Ltd. and Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. and the Reliance GIC Co. Ltd. has to implement the scheme for the District of Dakshin Dinajpur. For that reason, the Boro Paddy crops of the Complainant was insured by the Opposite Party No.1. 

              Now, from the letter dated 12.12.2018 issued by Thakurpura Barkoil S.K.U.S. Ltd. (B.D.P.), it appears that a list of 319 beneficiary of Crops Insurance has been sent to the Opposite Party No.3, out of which 119 persons have received their Insurance amount.   When the Complainant found that the no insurance amount has been credited in his account no.112000791946, then he approached to the Opposite Parties on 16.11.2018 but neither of the Opposite Parties gave the compensation rather harassed by showing un-necessary reasons. Here, it is crystal clear that there is no negligence on the part of the Opposite Party Nos.2, 3 & 4 but it is the Opposite Party no.1 i.e. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. who has failed to perform his duty by not providing the Insurance amount to the Complainant till now.  

Now, let us discuss regarding the quantum of the Insurance amount payable to the Complainant. It is true fact that the Boro paddy crops were damaged due to sporadic occurrence of hail storm on 29.06.2018 and for that occurrence the Govt. of West Bengal announced relief for the farmers who suffered loss of crops due to that hail storm. By a notification, the District Magistrate, Dakshin Dinajpur, after getting reports from the Assistant D.A. of the concerned Blocks, announced the quantum of damage to the extent of 33% and above. Though specific damage of the crops of the Complainant has not been ascertained but at the time of argument Ld advocate for the Complainant contended that the quantity of loss of damage was about 50% and this contention of Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has not been objected by the Ld. Advocates for the adversary. In such circumstances, we opine that the quantum of damage may be 50% and the Complainant is entitled to get 50% of his insured amount for the loss and damage of his crops which is considered to be proper and justified. 

                 In view of the above-mentioned discussions, it is clear that the Complainant is a consumer under the Opposite Party no.1 and there is deficiency in service on his part.

                Accordingly, both these points are decided in favour of the Complainant. 

Hence, it is                  

 

                                                         O R D E R E D

 

That the Consumer Case No. 132 of 2019 is dismissed on contest against the Opposite Party Nos. 2, 3 & 4 and allowed ex-parte against the Opposite Party Nos.1 in part with cost.

The Opposite Part No.1 is directed to credit an amount of Rs. 15,250/-, along with an interest @ 8% from 04.06.2018 till the full realization in the account of the Complainant being A/C No.112000791946 Thakurpura Barkail Sambay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. (B.D.P) within 45 days from the date of passing of this order. The Opposite Party No.1 is further directed to credit Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the account of the Complainant within 45 days from the date of passing of this order failing which the Complainant is at liberty to execute the order according to law.

 Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.